Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade Federation PAC

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. By the way, voting to merge without specifying a target is not terribly helpful. dbenbenn | talk 17:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trade Federation PAC
Apparantly this carries the Battle droid rack of an MTT. It was seen briefly in Episode I. While I'm usually pro-fancruft, this only gets 3 Google hits, from the same non-official site.-LtNOWIS 21:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not remotely needed in a general reference work. Isomorphic 21:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So this vehicle is not the MTT? Is this larger or smaller than a MTT? -- Riffsyphon1024 21:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Found what I needed to see after a Google search of "Trade Federation Platoon Attack Craft", which only pulled up two hits to Geocities sites. However the illustration of the PAC is from either the "Cross Sections" or "Inside the Worlds of" books. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Damn, I was about to link that site, but you beat me to it. I don't own the Episode I cross section (yet).  If it's mentioned in there, than there's a bit more notability, but still not enough for Wikipedia.-LtNOWIS 22:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A.L.
 * Keep but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 02:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously want to keep an article with 3 Google hits? I would probably want it kept, but I'm really not convinced it's even a real vehicle.-LtNOWIS 03:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's in the movie, and illustrated in a LucasArts-backed book, then it is notable, even if it makes a one second appearance. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In a general encyclopedia it's not. Delete -- Paul Richter 06:39, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus that wikipedia has to restrict itself to being a general encyclopedia, instead of a pan-specialist one. Kappa 12:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. "The sum of all human knowledge" mission statement would necessarily imply being a pan-specialist encyclopedia. - David Gerard 14:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The phrase "The Sum of Human Knowledge" didn't originate with Jimbo or the Wikipedia. It was the marketing slogan of the 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.   Clearly, it didn't "necessarily imply" that EB 1911 was a pan-specialist encyclopedia, and it does not "necessarily imply" that Wikipedia is that now.  --BM 17:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's 'cos they ran out of paper. We could ask Jimbo what he thought he meant when he said it, or would you not believe him either if he disagreed with you? - David Gerard 01:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * They described the EB that way after they published it in all its paper-imposed finitude. I'd believe Jimbo's statement as to what he meant, of course. Why wouldn't I?  He's the world expert on what Jimbo Wales means when he says things, unless its his shrink (or his wife).   As for whether I'd agree with his (current) definition, that would depend on what the definition was.  It would be nice if he were clear enough on its meaning that it would have some operational meaning -- so that one could determine, for example, that the "sum of human knowledge" includes or does not include an article on the "Trade Federation Platoon Attack Carrier" from Star Wars.  If "sum of human knowledge" means that Wikipedia is a "pan-specialist encyclopedia" with indefinite drill-down on specialized interests, then why do we have the statement in What Wikipedia is not that it is not a "general information base"?   But I dare say that if Jimbo were ever clear on the subject, that would have more influence in forming consensus amongst Wikipedians than my opinion, or yours.  --BM 12:46, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to an appropriate title. Incidentally, I read this and thought "Star Wars fans formed a political action committee?!"
 * Merge and redirect - David Gerard 14:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not encyclopedic to have a full article on every artifact or vehicle that appears fleetingly in one of the Star Wars movies.  We don't have articles on every type of troop carrier that has carried real human soldiers into real battles. And we shouldn't: Wikipedia is not a general information base, and it certainly is not a general information base about the fictional universe of Star Wars.  --BM 17:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I will vote for it to be merged with an article that combines several (possibly many) vehicles that are not capable of maintaining their own articles, just like all the minor characters that have to be merged with the big list of minor characters. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not start up a Star Wars wiki? TheBattlestar Galactica Series has its own wiki. If we have a Star Wars wiki, then Star Wars fans can get do start or edit articles. Don't deleat the Trade Federation PAC article, just relocate it to the Star Wars wiki as soon as it starts. --
 * Delete. This article will never grow beyond one paragraph of fancruft; there just isn't sufficient information out there. (A merge into a suitable collection of Star Wars vehicles would be acceptable if such an article exists.) --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.